What’s Going on Here?

This is a summary of the discussion on the Tarmac Delay post between June 2 and September 10.  (On that date, the post was closed to further discussion.)  The summary was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made.  This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong or unclear.

Important dates:

Sept. 13 – Sept. 19:  Comments can be made here on the draft
Sept. 20:  Commenting on the draft summary closed
Sept. 20 – Sept.  22:  Regulation Room team reviews comments and revises draft
Sept. 23:  Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to DOT Department of Transportation as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record.  (Sept. 23 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

1. The goal here is to give DOT Department of Transportation the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the Peanut Allergy discussion.  This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one.  Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.
2. Rulemaking is not a vote. DOT Department of Transportation is not allowed to decide what to do about peanuts based on majority rule.  (Why? See Effective Commenting).  Approximate numbers are provided in the summary to give DOT Department of Transportation a sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey, please don’t take it again.)

[dig]Who Participated in the Tarmac Delay Discussion?

Tarmac Delay generated a fair amount of discussion.  There were 106 total comments:

• 85 were made by 69 users (1 comment was gathered by site administrators from the site feedback page, and added to this post by the moderator.  No username was associated with this comment)
• 21 were made by Regulation Room moderators

Commenters included primarily people who identified themselves as air travelers.  Four who identified themselves as researcher/experts, two as working for a US air carrier, and five who described their interest as “other” also commented.

[dig] General Concerns over Tarmac Delay

Generally, commenters are concerned with the threat of exceptionally long tarmac delays.  At least 10 commenters expressed this concern by sharing personal stories of delays, some of which were over 6 hours.  At least two of these commenters were reporting delays experienced since the new 3-hour tarmac delay limit took effect.  Six of the 10 indicated that they experienced delays a number of years ago.  No timeframe was given in the remaining stories.  Commenters compare tarmac delays to being in prison or in a coffin, being treated like cattle or sheep, and being stripped of their freedom and welfare.

[dig] Which Flights and Carriers Should Be Covered by a Tarmac Delay Limit

Over 30 commenters say that DOT Department of Transportation should apply a uniform federal time limit on tarmac delay to all flights and airlines, regardless of aircraft size, airport size, and whether the flight is domestic or international.   No commenter argued that DOT Department of Transportation should have a different or shorter tarmac delay rule for international flights.

Many commenters argue that passengers on smaller planes are as uncomfortable during long delays as passengers on larger flights, so new rules should apply to flights of all capacities.  One commenter proposes that tarmac delay limits not apply to flights on aircraft designed to hold fewer than 60 passengers. This commenter points out that smaller flights have more personal customer service and it is less cumbersome for them to deplane if necessary.  He/she does support tarmac delay rules for international as well as domestic flights, and for all size airports.  A different commenter, whose first preference is to apply tarmac delay rules to all flights, proposes that if all flights are not covered, the cutoff should be set at planes designed to hold fewer than 30 passengers.

[dig] How Long the Time Limit Should Be

Most commenters who addressed the issue support DOT’s requiring uniform tarmac contingency plans and setting a uniform maximum time limit for tarmac delay. Nearly 30 commenters agree that passengers should not be on the plane for more than three hours (with some saying that anywhere from a half hour to 2 hours is too long.) About 20 commenters say that three hours is a good time limit, but many stress that this should be the absolute maximum total time that passengers wait on the plane, including time at the gate as well as on the tarmac.  No commenter suggests a uniform delay limit of more than 3 hours.

Several commenters would allow the maximum delay period to vary under certain circumstances.  Two suggest that the time limit should depend on the number of passengers and the adequacy of food and restroom facilities on the plane. One commenter argues that permissible delays should be less than three hours in small planes because these planes have so little headroom that passengers find it hard to stand up and walk around.  Another commenter argues that the time limit should make economic sense:  the point at which the cost to the airline of returning to the gate is lower than continuing to sit on the tarmac.

[dig] Airline Accommodations During Tarmac Delays

Many commenters support DOT’s requiring airlines to provide working bathrooms, water, beverages, snacks and, in some cases, meals on delayed flights.  A few commenters also mention the need for adequate temperature control.

For shorter flights, one commenter suggests that the airline provide food if the delay is longer than the actual flight (e.g. a 30-minute flight that is delayed 3 hours).  Another suggests that airlines adjust scheduled meal service to include the delay (e.g. if schedule calls for a meal 3 hours into flight time, provide meal after 1 hour of flight time if the flight is delayed 2 hours).  One commenter, who raised the problem of people with medical conditions that require frequent meals, argues that it is unreasonable to expect passengers to pack a full meal when traveling on short flights, e.g. less than an hour.  However, another commenter disagreed that this is the airline’s responsibility; she has juvenile (Type-1) diabetes and even if it’s hard to predict the need to pack a full meal, she packs snacks to tide her over and does not expect the airline to feed her.

[dig] Information About Flight Status

At least ten commenters cite the need for the airline and crew to provide detailed updates to passengers stuck on the tarmac.  No commenter disputed this.  Some commenters expect that airlines update passengers every thirty minutes with detailed information.  Others suggest that “regular notice” in real-time is appropriate, without defining or quantifying that.  One commenter believes that airlines have a responsibility to make ample communications to passengers when any problem arises, and thinks this requires updates every five minutes during the delay.

[dig]Deplaning

Approximately 20 commenters who cite the need for contingency plans make specific suggestions about deplaning.  One suggests, and approximately 10 others agree, that airlines should allow passengers to deplane and remain in a specified gate area until it is necessary to reboard. This would facilitate quick reboarding while also addressing the physical and mental health concerns of many commenters, which include conditions such as arthritis, back and knee problems, deep vein thrombosis, claustrophobia, and anxiety.  Some parents emphasize that children have special needs and therefore passengers must be allowed to deplane — although other commenters feel that age is not relevant because all passengers require bathroom facilities.  Several commenters emphasize that passengers who deplane into holding areas should not have to undergo further security scans prior to re-boarding the plane.

Other commenters favor allowing deplaning, but do not agree with that passengers must remain in a specified area.  One argues that passengers should be allowed to leave the area and make alternative travel arrangements if they wish.

By contrast, some commenters are concerned that deplaning will cause further delays or flight cancellations.  One says that deplaning is a bit extreme, given these concerns. Another suggests that deplaning should not be an option if the airport is closed or if the plane has adequate bathrooms and food is being served; if the airport is open and the airline is not providing food, passengers should be allowed to deplane to purchase food. Some of the concern about deplaning is that passengers would have to undergo additional security scans before reboarding.  One commenter emphasizes that it is the passengers’ responsibility to return to the plane at a specific time, otherwise the flight will leave without them.

Several commenters who discuss deplaning assume that passengers will be allowed to deplane once the plane returns to the gate, and focus only on the timing issue.  One commenter suggests that deplaning should be permitted after one hour; another, citing difficulty of getting passengers back on the plane when it was ready to depart, suggests two hours.  Six say that the amount of time before passengers are allowed to deplane should depend on the availability of air conditioning, water, food, and bathrooms on the aircraft.  If the services are not available, then the time should be less (one commenter suggests 30 minutes).  Another commenter adds that if all these services are available, the time before deplaning could be more flexible.

Several commenters discussed the idea of airports creating extra “holding” areas by limiting the number of operating flights (thus freeing up gates to use as holding areas), or creating extra gates for the use of delayed flights.  Commenters recognize that these solutions could result in higher prices and make airlines less competitive, although one suggests that such costs would likely be spread across all customers so it would not significantly raise individual ticket prices,and could have benefits that outweigh the costs.  This commenter also suggests that holding areas might be remote terminals for planes that had left the gate area.  These facilities could have restrooms, emergency services, etc.  The commenter acknowledges that this plan might be feasible only for large airports that have many delays, with a different approach needed for smaller airports — although another commenter, who thought the idea was interesting, pointed out that large airports in urban areas would likely have trouble expanding to create new terminal space.

This discussion prompted one commenter to suggest that if the airline is aware in advance of a weather delay, passengers should “virtually” board the plane so that the plane can enter a virtual tarmac line.  Then, when the weather is clear, the passengers can actually board the plane.  In this way, the original boarding area would be the holding area.  One commenter further developed the idea of the original boarding area serving as the holding area, suggesting that planes should not be allowed to board unless there is an expected takeoff time issued by FAA ATC, and should not be allowed to leave the gate if that time is over three hours they should not be allowed to leave the gate.  (This commenter believes that if they had left the gate and the time is extended for more than three hours, buses should be provided for any passenger wishing to deplane. Another commenter says that deplaning should not be allowed if the plane has already left the gate and is officially waiting for takeoff.)

Another suggestion is that airlines should enter into a barter or cost arrangement with other airlines to use their gates for deplaning. Two commenters argue that better planning and scheduling would prevent lengthy tarmac delays in the first place.

Commenters discussed whether airlines have sufficiently accurate information from the tower in time to make proactive, strategic decisions.  For related discussions, see the Flight Status Information summary.

Commenters insist that the captain (or an airline representative actually on the flight) should have the power to make the decisions about deplaning.  One commenter expresses frustration that often the people making decisions are middle managers not on the plane.

A few commenters indicate that the issue of deplaning is aggravated because of the method by which flight crew members are paid.  These commenters state that airline rules do not allow crew members to be paid for time spent at the gate, so the flight crew has an incentive to wait on the tarmac.  No commenter explicitly suggests that DOT Department of Transportation alter the pay scheme for flight  crews.

[dig] Enforcement: Penalties, Sanctions, and Compensation

A few commenters specifically address DOT’s responsibility to ensure that airlines comply with policies through the use of fines, penalties and other sanctions.  One commenter suggests a $5,000 fine per passenger for violating the tarmac delay time limit.  Another suggests that airlines should face sanctions if either they underestimate the time remaining for a delay in more than 10% of their total delayed flights, or they do not admit to passengers that they have no reliable estimate.

Some commenters suggest that DOT Department of Transportation require airlines to compensate passengers for tarmac delays.  Suggestions include:  a free class upgrade if the delay is more than 1.5 hours; a full refund and opportunity to deplane if it is more than 2 hours; and compensation for mechanical (but not weather) delays.  One commenter, however, thinks that compensation is not necessary as long as passengers are given air conditioning, bathrooms, and snacks/beverages.  Another commenter says that that having contingency plans is more important than imposing penalties.

[dig]Airline Transparency: Contract of Carriage and Statistical Information

A half dozen commenters say that information on tarmac delay regulations and the airlines’ contingency plans should be included in the contract of carriage provided to passengers when they are purchasing their tickets.  One commenter argues that explicit commitments in the contract of service would help customers in choosing a carrier.  Furthermore, offending airlines will have breached their contract of service with passengers.  Another commenter responds that including delay plans in the contract of service is unnecessary as long as airlines run the risk of penalties; these will serve as enough of a deterrent.

Two commenters suggest that consumers be provided with information on tarmac delays at airports prior to purchasing their tickets.  One commenter says that airlines should keep statistics on delays and frequently review their deplaning plans, providing a specific six-sigma approach for solving the problem.*

*  This commenter describes Six Sigma as a process that improves quality by: 1) Assigning an executive for improving quality (eliminating or reducing the problem); 2) Identifying problems and ranking them according to accepted criteria; 3) Developing and implementing a process for correcting the highest priority problem; 4) Collecting data to measure changes to the problem (getting better or worse); 5) Reporting results of the data collection and modifying the problem correction process whenever the data indicate the problem is not improving; and 6) Returning to Step 2 until the problem is reduced to acceptable levels.

What’s Going on Here?

This is a summary of the discussion on the Ticket Oversales/Bumping post between June 2 and September 10.  (On September 11, the post was closed to further discussion.)  The summary was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made.  This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong or unclear.

Important dates:

Sept. 13 – Sept. 19:  Comments can be made here on the draft
Sept. 20:  Commenting on the draft summary closed
Sept. 20 – Sept.  22:  Regulation Room team reviews comments and revises draft
Sept. 23:  Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to DOT Department of Transportation as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record.  (Sept. 23 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

1. The goal here is to give DOT the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the discussion.  This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one.  Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.
2. Rulemaking is not a vote. DOT is not allowed to decide what to do based on majority rule.  (Why? See Effective Commenting).  Approximate numbers are provided in the summary only to give DOT a sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey, please don’t take it again.)

[dig]Who Participated in the Ticket Oversales/Bumping Discussion?

Ticket Oversales/Bumping generated a lot of discussion. 99 comments were made on this post:

• 75 comments by 61 users
  (2 comments were gathered by site administrators from the site feedback page, and added to this post by the moderator.  No username was associated with these comments)
• 24 comments by Regulation Room moderators

Commenters included primarily people who identified themselves as air travelers. Three who identified themselves as researcher/experts, one as working for a US air carrier, one as working for a travel agent or Global Distribution System (GDS), and three who described their interest as “other” also commented.

[dig]Better Information for Air Travelers

No commenter who addressed the issue is satisfied with manner in which airlines disseminate overbooking and bumping information.  A variety of suggestions were made for giving travelers better warning and more complete information about options:

• Airlines should warn consumers in advance of the possibility of being bumped.  The possibility should be prominently disclosed on ticket sales websites, and should be printed on itineraries, boarding passes, etc.  Some commenters would like to have notices about possible bumping posted in airports.

• Some commenters favor a requirement that consumers get advance notice if their particular flight is likely to be significantly oversold so that they can decide whether to make other plans–although one commenter points out that airlines might not know this until it is too late for passengers to make changes.

• Announcements should be made to passengers awaiting boarding as soon as the airline knows there may be an oversale situation.  To give passengers time to consider how to respond, they should be clearly informed of their options, including the amounts of compensation paid and the alternate travel accommodations the airline will make for passengers who volunteer or are involuntarily bumped.  One commenter suggests that information about an oversale situation should also be posted on airline TV monitors.  Another asks for handouts outlining bumping rules and passenger rights to be available at the counter in English and multiple languages.

• Airlines should also tell passengers what system will be used to resolve the oversold situation (see next section).

[dig]Methods of Handling Oversold Flights, and Transparency

Commenters agree that the airline’s first step in handling an oversold situation should be asking for volunteers.  Especially if the airline has announced in advance the various compensation and accommodation rights, many believe this step will often be enough to solve the problem.

If enough volunteers do not step forward in response to the gate agent’s request one commenter commends the Wall Street Journal article suggesting an auction system in which airlines would offer passengers on overbooked flights a gradually rising reward for giving up their seat.

Whatever method is used to select those who will be denied boarding, passengers should be informed of the selection criteria.  Commenters who addressed the issue agree with DOT’s suggestion that this information should include notice to passengers in danger of being involuntarily bumped of their situation, in enough time for them to decide whether to volunteer and take advantage of the higher compensation.

[dig]Compensation and Caps

Most commenters who addressed the current system of bumping compensation oppose caps.  About half of these commenters support compensating bumped passengers at 200% of the ticket price.  Some see this as appropriate to deter airlines from overselling.  Other commenters say that full ticket value is sufficient but the airline must also compensate bumped passengers for intangibles and/or housing.  A handful of commenters support the cap policy with automatic periodic adjustment for inflation.  One commenter considers a $400 cap sufficient; this commenter fears that the higher caps will give travelers a windfall, and thinks that $400 is a fair average of a one-way fare.

A few commenters are concerned that compensation based on ticket price will incentivize airlines to bump those who paid the lowest prices.  Some suggested paying all bumped passengers a uniform compensation amount, or paying them the prevailing market value.

One commenter argues that airlines should waive any cancellation fees if a bumped passenger chooses not to travel on another flight;  if airlines are unwilling to waive restrictions and give a full refund to bumped passenger with a nonrefundable ticket, then they should be allowed to bump only passengers traveling on refundable tickets.  Another supports imposing additional monetary penalties on airlines who bump passengers repeatedly.

One commenter is willing to accept a voucher as compensation but the others who addressed this issue supports a requirement that airlines offer the option of compensation in cash.  One commenter points out that bumped passengers may not have check-cashing privileges in the area; credit card credit would be the most secure solution, but only if the credit is immediately accessible to the passenger.

Finally, one commenter proposes that airlines should not be allowed to charge passengers until they are on the flight.  That way, bumped passengers would not need to be compensated because they would not have paid the airline yet.

[dig]Small Aircraft

Most commenters who address the issue argue that aircraft size should be irrelevant to applying the bumping compensation rules, and strongly resist exempting the smallest aircraft.  One commenter points out that airlines are increasingly relying on regional carriers who fly smaller planes in smaller markets.  One commenter points out that it is usually more difficult to rebook in these situations; another expands on this point, drawing on his/her experience that in small airports served by small regional carriers, getting bumped can mean not getting to the traveler’s destination the same day or even the next day — which can cost the traveler lost vacation time, etc. in addition to compensable expenses.

A handful of commenters go further and urge DOT Department of Transportation to prohibit oversales on small-aircraft flights because bumping is likely to be more disruptive to travel plans on routes that use small planes than routes covered by larger aircraft.  One commenter points out that there are less likely to be no-shows on these flights, given the number of business/full fare travelers.  Instead of overselling, airlines should use standby lists to deal with no-shows. Another commenter suggests that if oversales are not banned, at least they should be more limited.

Only one commenter would not apply the normal bumping compensation rules to small flights.  Typically, a smaller connecting flight will be either close to home, or close to the destination, where the traveler may opt for a rental car or taxi instead.  Therefore, this commenter suggests that compensation be based on what the alternative travel options are.

[dig]Banning Overselling on All Flights

About ten commenters urge DOT Department of Transportation to ban airlines from overselling any flights.  In addition to the expense and plan disruption caused by being denied boarding, commenters see this as a fundamental breach of the airline’s commitment to them – something that does not occur in other transportation contexts.  Two commenters disagree.  One would allow the current practice to stand because prohibiting overselling would lead to an increase in airline ticket prices and adversely affect everyone.  The other would not outlaw the overselling, but would reduce the current level of oversales.  To lessen the economic impact of banning oversales, one commenter suggests that airlines sell reduced rate fares the day of the flight to fill empty flights with flexible travelers.  Another questions how no-shows hurt airlines; the airline has already sold the seat and will save fuel costs flying with less weight.  If no-shows are being given refunds, then the airline should sell more nonrefundable tickets.

[dig]Treatment of Zero Fare Tickets

All commenters who address the issue agree that zero-fare ticket holders should be compensated if bumped, although there are different views of the appropriate form.

The majority of commenters say that these passengers should get frequent flyer miles because that is how they paid for the ticket: proposals include double the miles the passenger paid or, recognizing that these travelers may have bumping-related expenses that miles will not address, miles plus cash to cover lodging and food.  Three commenters say that the bumped zero-fare ticket holder should have be given the option of miles or cash compensation:  one proposal for the latter would use two times the prevailing market price at the time of the flight.

What’s Going on Here?

This is a summary of the discussion on the Flight Status Information post between June 2 and September 10.  (On September 11, the post was closed to further discussion.)  The summary was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made.  This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong or unclear.

Important dates:

Sept. 13 – Sept. 19:  Comments can be made here on the draft
Sept. 20:  Commenting on the draft summary closed
Sept. 20 – Sept.  22:  Regulation Room team reviews comments and revises draft
Sept. 23:  Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to DOT Department of Transportation as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record.  (Sept. 23 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

1. The goal here is to give DOT the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the discussion.  This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one.  Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.
2. Rulemaking is not a vote. DOT is not allowed to decide what to do based on majority rule.  (Why? See Effective Commenting).  Approximate numbers are provided in the summary only to give DOT a sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey, please don’t take it again.)

[dig]Who Participated in the Flight Status Information Discussion?

Flight Status Information issue generated good discussion.  There were 67 total comments:

• 50 were made by 42 users
• 17 were made by Regulation Room moderators

Commenters included primarily people who identified themselves as air travelers. One who identified himself/herself as a researcher/expert, two as working for a travel agent or global distribution system (GDSs), two as working for a US air carrier, and one who described their interest as “other” also commented.

[dig]General Concerns about Flight Status Information

Several commenters self-identified as frequent flyers.  At least four commenters recounted personal stories of driving through bad weather conditions because they were not notified of a delay/cancellation, or of waiting for hours at a chaotic airport because of untimely or nonexistent delay/cancellation updates.

[dig] Notifying Passengers of Flight Delays

Most commenters who addressed this issue agree that airlines should be required to give passengers better information about delays and cancellations, although at least three commenters say that their airlines already adequately notify passengers when a flight is delayed or canceled, and one adds that he/she is usually able to get flight status information online without problems.  And one commenter believes that a blanket rule will not be effective and may cause more problems because airlines are sometimes uncertain about how long a flight will be delayed.

DOT’s proposal to require notification for delays of 30 minutes or more seems reasonable to many, but not all, commenters.  At least one commenter says that consumers should be notified of any delay.  Another suggests delays greater than 15 minutes, with 30 minute updates.  Other commenters favor a less onerous notification policy:  At least three say that notification should be required only for delays of an hour or more. Commenters point out that travel time to airports, added to check-in congestion and time required to clear security, means that many travelers head to the airport two hours or more before their flight time.  This leads one commenter to speculate that perhaps airline resources should be concentrated on getting passengers information about delays of more than two hours.  One commenter who pointed out that notice of a 30-minute delay would likely not help passengers adjust their departure for the airport nonetheless supported the notification requirement because it would lower passengers’ frustration:  “if I’m going to be treated like cattle, I’d just as soon be happy cattle.”  Many commenters agree that better status information is important not only for planning purposes but also because it reduces passengers’ feelings of frustration and uncertainty.  There was disagreement about airlines’ responsibility to advise passengers of general delays caused, for example, by weather.  Some commenters say that airlines should alert passengers that, for example, all flights are being delayed 1-2 hours by weather; at least one other commenter says that airlines should not have to give notice in situations where passengers ought to realize there will be weather-related delay.

At least some of the disagreement about what length delay should trigger notice requirements seems to reflect the fact that commenters often do not separately address the value of information prior to their leaving for the airport vs. its value once they are already at the airport.  Several recount stories of frustrating experiences of lack of information, vague information, or even misleading information while waiting for a flight in the gate area or elsewhere in the airport. 

[dig] Accuracy of Status Information

Several commenters are concerned about the accuracy of information about flight status.  One worries about what would happen if passengers relied on the airline’s prediction of a 30 minute delay that turns out to be shorter.  Some commenters say that inaccurate status information is actually causes more problems than no information, especially if consumers are getting different messages from airport screen, online, and gate sources.  (See below).

There was agreement with one commenter’s suggestion that airlines should be candid with travelers that they are unable to accurately estimate delay time, whenever this is in fact the case.  One commenter points out that some delays (e.g., because of late departure of the aircraft to be used on the flight) are easier to predict accurately than others (e.g., mechanical problems).

One commenter notes that airlines depend on the FAA for accurate delay-related information, and urges DOT Department of Transportation to consider whether FAA’s traffic management practices and procedures will inhibit airlines’ ability to give accurate and timely notice to passengers.

[dig]Timing of Notification and Updates

Many commenters suggest that airlines be required to report status changes within 30 minutes after discovering that a flight will be delayed or cancelled.  At least three commenters would require notification “as soon as [the airline] know[s]”.)

One commenter believes that the problem is less the frequency of delay updates (which in his/her experience are often communicated instantly via airport screens) than it is the way airlines report the information.  Specifically, delays are often reported in small intervals (e.g. announcing, every 30 minutes, another 30-minute delay) when an extended delay is actually anticipated.  Thus, this commenter argues, the information passengers do get is not really useful.

Echoing this latter concern, at least six commenters specifically addressed notice of flight cancellations.  Some express concern and frustration that airlines are not being honest about cancellations.  One commenter complains that airlines sometimes insist a flight will not be canceled despite poor weather conditions, and then cancel the flight officially many hours later.  Others complain that airlines do not always abide by their promise to give periodic updates.  Passengers who rely on this promise may move to other areas of the airport to await an update – only to learn hours later that the flight was cancelled.

[dig]Methods for Notifying Passengers of Flight Status

At least seven commenters addressed how airlines should provide notice.  One argues that the methods should be standardized, with all airlines required to use them.  Several commenters emphasize that email and texting notification should be used.  One suggests that airlines could easily create an automated system to send email and text alerts.  Another commenter points out that that not all passengers carry cell phones and email devices, so airlines must also notify passengers via airport screens and loudspeakers.  At least three commenters say that airlines should utilize “all available methods” in communicating delays to passengers.  One commenter suggests that passengers should be able to specify their preferred method of notification when they purchase their tickets.

Several commenters emphasize the importance of also requiring that information be communicated rapidly to all relevant airline employees and between airport and airline, so that the various information sources are giving passengers consistent information. Complaints about this include getting inconsistent information from reservation agents, gate agents, the airline’s phone or online flight status center, and the airport screens.

[dig] Which Carriers and Flights Should Be Covered

All commenters who addressed this issue favor applying the same requirements to all carriers and all flights, except for one commenter who suggests that foreign flights might be excluded from notification requirements. (This commenter gives no reason for making a distinction.)

[dig] Miscellaneous Points

Several commenters raised concerns and made suggestions more broadly around flight delays and cancellations.

One issue is availability of personnel to provide information and help passengers affected by delays or cancellation.  One commenter has experienced problems when flight schedule problems extend to “after hours,” when, in this commenter’s words, “nobody seems to be minding the store.” He/she suggests that personnel be required to continue working at the airport until the last flight of the day has arrived or departed, to assist consumers.   Another reports several experiences where rebooking after long flights delays had to be done through the airline’s reservation phone number because no one was staffing the customer service center or gates, and the automated kiosks were unable to process the change. He/she was charged for doing the change over the phone, although there were no other options.

Another issue is the root cause of delays and cancellations.  Several commenters discussed the extent to which delays and cancellations are within the carrier’s control.  On air traffic congestion one commenter suggests that airlines now have incentives to fly more small planes (rather than fewer large ones) to carry the same number of passengers.  These incentives include  landing fees based on weight (which make it cheaper to land two lighter planes than one heavier one), and competitive concerns that push all carriers to offer frequent flights in the most desired times for business travelers.  This commenter suggests government restructuring of incentives:   landing charges primarily based on using a slot, with only some consideration to weight. Also, fees should increase at peak times of day, to encourage carriers to spread out their flights.   For related comments, see the Tarmac Delay summary.

Commenters also targeted policies and practices that make it difficult for passengers to act on information about delays or cancellations even when the information is available.  Some note that because of long baggage clearance and security lines, passengers are often told they must be at the airport 2 hours before their scheduled flight time.  Another explains that many airlines require passengers to arrive in-person at the airport to qualify for a refund or rebooking, so notification of a delay or cancellation would not avoid the need to go to the airport and wait in long lines for a rebooking/refund.  (A variation is a policy of imposing a service charge for rebookings/refunds made through the airline’s reservation phoneline, even when the change is necessary because of delays/cancellations.)  One commenter questions the value of notification requirements so long as airlines are not required to rebook passengers onto another flight or another carrier’s flight.

What’s Going on Here?

This is a summary of the discussion on the Pricing & Advertising post between June 2 and September 10.  (On September 11, the post was closed to further discussion.)  The summary was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made.  This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong or unclear.

Important dates:

Sept. 13 – Sept. 19:  Comments can be made here on the draft
Sept. 20 :  Commenting on the draft summary closed
Sept. 20 – Sept.  22:  Regulation Room team reviews comments and revises draft
Sept. 23:  Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to DOT Department of Transportation as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record.  (Sept. 23 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

1. The goal here is to give DOT the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the discussion.  This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one.  Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.
2. Rulemaking is not a vote. DOT is not allowed to decide what to do based on majority rule.  (Why? See Effective Commenting).  Approximate numbers are provided in the summary only to give DOT a sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey, please don’t take it again.)

[dig]Who Participated in the Pricing & Advertising Discussion?

Pricing & Advertising generated a lot of discussion. 94 comments were made on this post:

• 79 comments were made by 52 users
• 15 comments were made by Regulation Room moderators

Commenters included people who identified themselves as frequent flyers, occasional travelers, and business owners. Four who identified themselves as working for a travel agent or Global Distribution System (GDSs), one as working for a U.S. air carrier, and one who described their interest as “other” also commented.

[dig]General Overview Of Comments

In both this discussion and the discussion on Baggage and Other Fees, many commenters saw DOT’s proposals on full and fair advertising as an invitation to express their unhappiness about airfare cost and pricing practices.  So, although there is generally broad support for requiring additional disclosure of prices, fees and costs, commenters frequently seek regulatory action on the underlying pricing practices (even when this was not part of DOT’s proposal.)

Because of this, there is some overlap in the comments on the two posts.  We have not tried to combine overlapping comments, so the Baggage and Other Fees Draft Summary should be consulted along with what is said here.

[dig]Concerns about Current Advertising Practices

Commenters are frustrated that airlines and other air travel sellers do not present information about fares, taxes and fees in consistent, easy to understand ways that enable intelligent comparison shopping.  For example, some include fuel surcharges in the fare while others list them separately.  Several commenters complain that airlines impose various surcharges and fees that are misrepresented as required by government.   Many recount experiences of believing they are getting one price for a ticket only to discover that undisclosed taxes, fees, etc. makes the final price much higher.  Some commenters believe that the level of confusion consumers experience from current methods of pricing and advertising is so great that it borders on fraud and bait-and-switch tactics.

Many commenters seem concerned that even with mandatory disclosure of fees, consumers will still be confused and mislead.  They emphasize that regulation in this area must be very clear and specific, with no loopholes that could lead to exploiting consumers.  In addition, commenters stress that price and fee disclosure has to be easy to view and understand, rather than coming in the form of many pages of fine print.  Moreover, they insist, the same disclosure standards should apply to all forms of advertisement – print, electronic, broadcast, and in person – and to third party ticket sellers as well as the airlines.  Several commenters urge that foreign airlines should also be covered for flights to and from the U.S., for undisclosed taxes and fees can be substantial for international flights.

[dig]What Should be Disclosed

Commenters had a number of suggestions about what disclosure regulations should cover:

There is broad support for requiring that the total final airfare cost, including all applicable taxes, fees, and surcharges, should be fully disclosed and clearly disclosed in advertising and before purchase.  (One commenter suggests that if airlines want to list a base price without taxes, the typeface should be no more than half the size of that used for the total fare.  Another would specify 12 point font.)  One commenter notes that the European Union already requires this, and that US airlines comply by providing full price information for tickets purchased on the foreign version of their website even while they are not providing the information for the identical flight on the American version of their site.  Another points out that if federal excise taxes can be included (as is currently the practice), there is no reason why other taxes, fees, and surcharges cannot be part of an advertised price.  Two commenters dissent from this, however.  They are concerned that airlines may not be able to fully anticipate all associated fees and taxes when advertising fares; these can vary considerably by individual flight depending, for example, on which connecting cities the flight is routed through.  One commenter in particular fears that airlines will respond to this uncertainty by simply raising prices across the board to be safe.  The other believes that the entire structure of taxes and fees would have to be revamped before fare prices can be stated in advance with complete accuracy.

Most commenters who addressed the issue support requiring fuel and other surcharges imposed by the airlines themselves to be disclosed separately.  These charges should not be misrepresented as government-imposed taxes and fees. Many commenters argue that these charges, along with taxes and fees, should be refundable if the ticket is cancelled (see below) but if not, urge that non-refundability be clearly disclosed.

Restrictions on change and cancellation should be disclosed clearly and fully.  Commenters complain that consumers are often unaware of hidden fees associated with changing or cancelling flights; these fees should be clearly disclosed at the time of purchase so that consumers can to make informed choices before buying.

Baggage and all required additional travel costs should be fully disclosed and, where possible, paid for by the consumer at the time of purchase, so that people are not surprised at check-in.

Optional services should be clearly distinguished from mandatory charges.  All commenters who addressed the issue agree that optional services should be presented as opt-in, not opt-out.

One commenter proposes that sellers be required to disclose the “agent’s fee,” separately from the base fare.

Dissenting from calls for more required disclosure, one commenter objects to additional regulation as taking basic responsibility out of people’s hands. He/she argues that so long as the total cost must be listed before the ticket charge is made, it’s up to the consumer to ask what the additional fees and charges are.  (Another commenter responds that ticket websites often do not have a place for consumers to ask such questions, and that sellers impose an additional charge for phone purchased from a person who could provide answers.)  One commenter believes that disclosing more than the total cost will be confusing.

One commenter answers DOT’s question about costs to sellers of changing their websites and adjusting their selling practices by saying that air travel sellers brought these costs on themselves when they created their current websites and other “semi-deceptive” sales methods. Another argues that all the small print “gotchas” in advertising cost sellers more the changes needed to make the site “cleaner, leaner and fairer.”

[dig] Unbundled fares

A few commenters specifically address the issue of what a “total fare” cost should include now that airlines are charging separately for so many services.  These comments are not always clear whether the commenter is calling just for advertising of the cost of traditionally included services,  or whether he/she is asking DOT Department of Transportation to require that these services be rebundled into the base ticket price.  (See the similar question in Baggage and Other Fees Draft Summary.)

In any event, these are the elements suggested as traditionally included in the total fare cost: roundtrip fare with all taxes and fees; one checked bag; advance seat selection )with at least one commenter urging DOT Department of Transportation to prohibit airlines from declaring window and aisle seats “premium” for which there is an extra charge), and beverage service.  As an alternative, one commenter proposes that all airlines be required to quote a “typical” fare that includes the price, fee and tax inclusive, to fly round-trip with one checked bag to the destination – regardless of whether the airline bundles these services or not;  the point is to give consumers a common point for comparing fare across carriers.

One commenter suggests that airlines should bundle services as on cruise ships, where different fares correspond to location of seat (this commenter would allow charging more for aisle seats) and set of services.  Yet another says that airlines should be able to charge separately for everything but water so long as there is full disclosure.

[dig] “One-Way Fare” Advertising

Five commenters strongly support DOT’s proposal to ban advertising one-way air fare prices that are really available only as part of a round-trip flight or with other additional fees.  Some would go further than the proposal and require that only the round-trip fare can be advertised in these circumstances.  Two commenters believe that analogous disclosure should be required of any restriction on occupancy rates, etc. in flight-accommodation packages.

[dig] Pricing

Many commenters addressed the issue of post-purchase price increases.  (The nature and intensity of the comments suggests there was some misperception of the circumstances in which this issue could arises – i.e., commenters thinking that such increases were possible in run-of-the-mill ticket sales, rather than in the limited situation of a package tour offered by a tour operator.)  Most favor banning the practice regardless of whether the increases are conspicuously disclosed or affirmatively agreed upon, with several characterizing the practice as fraud or coercion.  Three suggest that if post-purchase increases are allowed, consumers should be able to cancel or change their plans without penalty.  Two others suggest that post-purchase increases should only be allowed if consumers are entitled to refunds if the post-purchase price falls below the price originally paid. Two commenters disagree with the rest on this issue.  They believe that consumers are adequately protected by DOT’s proposed alternative of requiring “conspicuous” disclosure of the possibility of an increase and of the maximum possible amount, and requiring that consumers affirmatively agree to this term.

Several commenters express frustration with advertised airfare prices that seem to change rapidly for no apparent reason.  In particular, some complain, price-comparison is difficult when a fare advertised on one website is gone in the time it takes a consumer to check another website for a different carrier – or even in the time it takes to actually try to make the reservation after selecting the desired flights.  One commenter, calling this problem a ‘bait-and-switch’ tactic suggests that websites be required to honor the offered price for a certain amount of time (e.g., 10 minutes).  Unless the flight has fully sold out, any available seat should be provided at the offered price.  Another commenter proposes that airlines be required to list the number of seats available at each price.

[dig] Airline-Initiated Flight Changes and Cancellations

Several commenters complain about airline-initiated changes in flight schedules after purchase that leave travelers with a flight longer, at a different time, or otherwise less convenient than the one for which they purchased tickets.  These commenters urge DOT Department of Transportation to require airlines to address the problem by at least waiving change or cancellation fees and refunding “non-refundable” tickets if the traveler wants to make alternate arrangements.  Some would go as far as requiring airlines to provide satisfactory alternative arrangements to the original flight.  One commenter suggests that this situation be treated like involuntary bumping in terms of required compensation to passengers.  Another notes that such changes often result in less desirable seating, especially for parties traveling together.  This commenter points out that airlines penalize passengers heavily for making schedule changes, and yet passengers get no accommodation for airline-initiated changes.

In a related complaint, one commenter strongly urges that airlines be subject to a penalty for cancelling flights on short notice, since other arrangements (such as tours or cruises) are often timed to coordinate with the originally scheduled flight.

[dig] Refunds

Commenters who addressed the issue strongly agree that taxes and fees collected with nonrefundable fares should be refunded if the consumer cancels the flight.  They consider the airline to be unjustifiably pocketing money that it will not be paying out to the entity imposing the charge.

One commenter complains that airlines can be very slow to post credits to the consumer’s credit card.  He/she urges DOT Department of Transportation to require prompt crediting of refunds and to impose a fine for noncompliance.

What’s Going on Here?

This is a summary of the discussion on the Baggage and Other Fees post between June 2 and September 10.  (On September 11, the post was closed to further discussion.)  The summary was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made.  This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong or unclear.

Important dates:

Sept. 13 – Sept. 19:  Comments can be made here on the draft
Sept. 20:  Commenting on the draft summary closed
Sept. 20 – Sept.  22:  Regulation Room team reviews comments and revises draft
Sept. 23:  Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to DOT Department of Transportation as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record.  (Sept. 23 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

1. The goal here is to give DOT the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the discussion.  This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one.  Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.
2. Rulemaking is not a vote. DOT is not allowed to decide what to do based on majority rule.  (Why? See Effective Commenting).  Approximate numbers are provided in the summary only to give DOT a sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey, please don’t take it again.)

[dig]Who Participated in the Baggage and Other Fees Discussion?

The issues around baggage and other fees generated more discussion than any other post except Peanut Allergies.  There were 116 total comments:

• 93 were made by 80 users
• 23 were made by Regulation Room moderators

Commenters included primarily people who identified themselves as air travelers. Four who identified themselves as working for a U.S. air carrier, one as working for a travel agent or Global Distribution System (GDS), one who is a researcher/expert, and one who described their interest as  “other” also commented.

[dig] General Overview

Although DOT’s proposal about baggage and other fees focuses on getting passengers better information about the nature and amount of separate charges, commenters clearly wanted to talk about regulating airlines’ power to continue unbundled pricing.  Many commenters want DOT Department of Transportation to limit unbundled pricing – although there is disagreement about what services should be bundled into the basic ticket price, and there are several proponents of continuing to allow airlines to use an a la carte pricing model.  In general, commenters agree that consumers should get full, clearly presented information about the elements of whatever pricing structure is used.  There is some concern, however, that consumers (especially infrequent travelers) will be confused by complex pricing schedules.  Although commenters want full disclosure of costs and fees, there is also an expressed need for an uncomplicated format that is consistently used by all carriers, regardless of size.

Note that because DOT’s proposals sparked discussion of airline pricing practices as well as information disclosure, there is significant overlap between comment on this post and on the Pricing and Advertising post.  We have not tried to combine overlapping comments, so the Pricing and Advertising  Draft Summary should also be consulted.

The focus on unbundling charges for air travel services led many commenters to complain that there is insufficient transparency about airlines’ operating costs.  Many express frustration about paying for services that used to be included in the basic ticket price and are suspicious that unbundled fees are not necessary to the industry’s survival.  Some argue that airlines are charging unreasonable prices and overcompensating their executives while reducing service quality.  Many note that international airlines do not charge for baggage fees, or otherwise “nickel and dime” passengers for services, and yet are able to maintain healthy profit margins.  Several commenters urge DOT Department of Transportation to require that consumers have access to more operating cost information, such as each airline’s cost per passenger seat mile.

[dig] Baggage Fees

Of all the services airlines have unbundled from the basic ticket price, baggage fees seem to create the most frustration.  At least 15 commenters want DOT Department of Transportation to require airlines to include at least one checked bag in the base ticket price.  It appears that commenters mean this to be one checked bag in addition to a carry-on, although this is somewhat ambiguous since only about half of them explicitly mention the carry-on allowance as well.  Several say they are not opposed to a baggage fee scheme in principle, so long as the first bag is “free.”  By contrast, a few of the 15 commenters favor including two checked bags in the base ticket price.  Many of the commenters acknowledge the appropriateness of reasonable weight limitations, and no one argues against extra fees for overweight bags.

About half a dozen commenters disagree, favoring an a la carte pricing model that would involve separate fees for baggage as well as other services.  These comments are discussed in the next section.

As part of a side discussion of whether there should be regulations requiring very large passengers to purchase two seats, a couple of commenters suggest that fees should be based on the combined weight of the passenger and his/her luggage.  In response, one commenter argues that such a scheme would be impractical and nearly impossible to implement.

Commenters debated the broader air travel impact of charging for checked baggage.  About a dozen commenters argue that the practice is counterproductive because it creates incentives for passengers to cram as much carry-on luggage as possible onto the plane. This causes boarding delays, increases security risks, heightens the potential for injuries from packed overhead compartments, and generally raises the stress level of flight attendants as well as passengers.

Several other commenters (most of whom identified themselves as business travelers) insist that checked-bag fees are not the main cause of increased carry-on volume.  They argue that travelers are motivated to carry-on luggage because it is quicker and more convenient (baggage handling at check-in and at arrival is time-consuming and inefficient) as well as more reliable and secure for valuable belongings such as laptops. Some commenters hope that DOT Department of Transportation will address the issue of carry-ons given the problems created by lack of overhead compartment space.  Many also express frustration with baggage policies that are inconsistent across airlines and airports.

[dig] Permissible Pricing Model – and Implications for Fare Advertising

Although DOT’s “full fare” proposal extends only to how price information is presented to consumers, commenters tended to use it as a springboard for discussing the best air travel pricing model: unbundled (“a la carte”) pricing vs. bundled pricing.  Nearly two dozen commenters participated.  Their discussion is sometimes ambiguous, for many speak in terms of how fares and fees should be “listed” or “posted.”  However, requiring that air travel providers list a hypothetical “full fare” price that includes the cost of some or all separate-fee services does not change airlines’ power to charge – or passengers’ ability to choose whether to pay – separately for those services.  Hence, much of the discussion makes sense only if commenters are debating whether DOT Department of Transportation should regulate unbundling practices.  This summary has tried to sort out commenter views about whether unbundling should be permitted from the question whether airlines that do unbundle services should be required to include a hypothetical “full fare” price paid by a consumer who buys all those services.

The roughly two dozen commenters who discussed bundled vs. unbundelled pricing are about evenly split on which is preferable.

Commenters who favor unbundled “a la carte” pricing support this model because it allows individuals to choose what optional services they want (checked bags, entertainment, food, etc.). These commenters assume that most travelers do not want many of the services that airlines are now pricing separately. Therefore, although they generally favor requiring airlines and other air travel sellers to prominently display the available unbundled options to consumers, some see little use in requiring ticket sellers to list an additional, hypothetical “full fare” price.  Others, though, support the idea of presenting consumers with both the “minimum” price (with no optional services included) and a “maximum price” (with all optional services included).  Some suggest listing the maximum price and giving consumers the ability to “remove” unwanted options to get at the amount they will have to pay to get only the extra services they wish. It is not always clear whether these latter commenters are envisioning the full maximum price (or the maximum price with individual-selected deductions) as just a planning device that enables consumers to  estimate the total they will end up paying — or whether they think airlines should have various fares that include different combinations of services.  What is clear is that all commenters advocate clear and open disclosure on exactly what consumers will get for the fare they paid.

Roughly the same number of commenters wants some form of DOT Department of Transportation regulation requiring a bundled pricing model, in which the carrier must include “traditional” services passengers expect to be part of the basic price of the ticket.  Some commenters describe unbundling as deceiving consumers about the true cost of their fare; one argues that pricing tickets by class (first, business, and economy) is the only kind of “unbundling” of services that is not a deliberate attempt to confuse and mislead consumers.  As far as what “traditional” services include, most agree on the following: seat assignment, baggage (see the previous section for amount), overhead space, bathrooms, fuel surcharges, taxes and other required fees. Several also include blankets and pillows. All agree that entertainment is not included. There is some disagreement about whether meals should be part of the bundle, at least on flights over 4 hours.

[dig] Additional discussion of price advertising

Whether or not they joined the discussion of pricing model, commenters generally agree that pricing information should be prominently displayed and widely disseminated both at the time of marketing/advertising and at the time of purchase.  There is, however, disagreement about exactly what information should be included, and how it should be disseminated.

More than fifteen commenters favor requiring disclosure of all optional and mandatory charges and fees.  They say that the format of disclosure should be prominent, readily understandable, and concise, and should make clear which items are mandatory and which are optional.  However, some commenters disagree with requiring air travel sellers to disclose all possible fees and charges in marketing and ticket-purchasing materials.  One argues that such a “laundry list” would be counterproductive because it would cause more confusion among passengers.  Another suggests that meals, entertainment, and other clearly discretionary traveler purchases do need not to be included.  Air travel pricing already is complicated – especially for infrequent travelers – and there is concern that additional rules about advertising should not make the problem worse.  All airlines (regardless of size) should use a standardized, uncomplicated format that is understandable to all consumers.  One commenter also suggests “Plain English (and maybe Spanish), written at a fifth grade level.”

One commenter, who self-identified as a ticket agent, emphasized that if air travel sellers other than airlines are included in new regulations, DOT Department of Transportation must make certain that a procedure is in place to ensure that travel agents and other third parties get full, current fee information from airlines.  Third party air travel sellers should not be burdened with the responsibility to constantly call the airlines to verify baggage and other fees.

Commenters have a wide range of views on where fee information should be listed.  Some go as far as advocating that detailed fee information should appear everywhere ticket price information appears — including itinerary print-outs and boarding passes. One commenter explained that including separate fee information on the boarding pass is far easier for business travelers (who seek reimbursement for additional charges such as baggage fees) than separate fee receipts provided at check-in.  Several commenters favor requiring that detailed fee information be posted on the websites of carriers and code-share partner, as well as on independent, aggregate websites.  Others want this information posted on the websites of online travel services,  as well available from travel agents and traditional travel agencies. One commenter suggests posting the information in the check-in area.

Nearly all of these commenters state that, although they would like to see pricing information available through all these mediums, the minimum necessary posting is airline websites and ticketing outlets, including online ticket services. Still, a few commenters argue that the only required posting should be on the carrier’s homepage.  These commenters believe passengers should be able to investigate and determine which carrier they wish to use and compare fee schemes on their own.

One commenter suggests that consumers be required to formally acknowledge their understanding of all fees before the ticket purchase can be processed.

[dig]Fee Changes

Several commenters address concerns about fee changes. Some think this should be handled by requiring carriers to give advance notice: Several would require that fee changes be announced at least six months prior to taking effect. One commenter suggests a three-month advance notice requirement, but several respond that three months is too short, particularly for less-frequent travelers.

Several commenters, however, argue that advance notice requirements are good but travelers who buy their tickets far in advance should not be penalized.  They propose that whatever fees are in effect the day the ticket is purchased must be the fees the passenger actually pays, regardless of the fees in place on the date of travel.

[dig]Code Share Partners

Commenters generally agree that the fee structure imposed should be that of the issuing airline, not the carrier providing the service. Two commenters go so far as suggesting that the code partner’s fee should apply if less than the issuing airline.

Commenters also note the importance of providing purchasers information about any code share partner. One notes in particular that the issuing airline should inform travelers if its partner has more stringent restrictions on luggage that could potentially lead to additional fees (i.e. smaller overhead bins, which might require the passenger to check the bag).

[dig]Refunds

Five commenters address refunds, arguing that carriers should be required to refund a baggage fee if the baggage is delayed, lost, or damaged.  For a more in-depth discussion of refunds see the Pricing and Advertising Summary.

What’s Going on Here?

This is a summary of the discussion on the Customer Service Plans post between June 2 and September 10.  (On September 11, the post was closed to further discussion.)  The summary was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made.  This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong or unclear.

Important dates:

Sept. 13 – Sept. 19:  Comments can be made here on the draft
Sept. 20:  Commenting on the draft summary closed
Sept. 20 – Sept.  22:  Regulation Room team reviews comments and revises draft
Sept. 23:  Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to DOT Department of Transportation as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record.  (Sept. 23 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

1. The goal here is to give DOT the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the discussion.  This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one.  Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.
2. Rulemaking is not a vote. DOT is not allowed to decide what to do based on majority rule.  (Why? See Effective Commenting).  Approximate numbers are provided in the summary only to give DOT a sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey, please don’t take it again.)

[dig]Who Participated in the Customer Service Plans Discussion?

The customer service plans issue generated a moderate amount of discussion.  There were 79 total comments:

• 68 were made by 50 users
  (5 comments were gathered by site administrators from the site feedback page, and added to this post by the moderator.  No username was associated with these comments)
• 11 were moderator comments

Commenters included primarily people who identified themselves as air travelers. Two who identified themselves as researcher/experts, one as working for a travel agent or Global Distribution System (GDS), and one who described their interest as “other” also commented.

[dig]Overview

Most commenters support DOT’s proposals, saying they are generally reasonable and appropriate.  Many commenters express general frustration with air travel and airlines, and

some want DOT Department of Transportation to go further in setting minimum standards and prohibiting certain current practices.  Several commenters, however, oppose additional regulation, fearing that the costs will be passed on to consumers.  They expect air travelers to accept the normal risks of flying, and believe that the market will set appropriate standards based on consumers’ choice of carrier.

Because many of the topics that DOT Department of Transportation may include in a set of minimum standards for customer service plans are the subject of separate posts, the discussion on this post overlaps with discussion summarize in Tarmac Delay, Ticket Oversales/Bumping, Baggage and Other Fees, and other summaries.  We have not consolidated comments from this post into those others, but we may do so in the Final Summary.

[dig]Flight Delays, Cancellations, Ticketing and Fee Practices

Many comments favor requiring airlines provide full refunds as well as compensation for hotels and meals if there is a significant delay in flight time.  Some suggest that any delay over three hours is “significant”; others are willing to let DOT Department of Transportation define “significant delay.”

On the issue of cancellation, one commenter favors the idea of a 24-hour window for cancellation and refund for all fares and fees, without penalty, from the point of purchase.  Another suggests a three-day window prior to the scheduled departure date to either cancel or reschedule a flight without additional fees.  One commenter wants airlines to offer travelers cancellation insurance.

Three commenters urge DOT Department of Transportation to adopt a rule that airlines may not reschedule or cancel   passengers’ already purchased flights without an automatic refund.

Two commenters urge a rule that tickets are transferable to third parties. One argues that it is unreasonable to prevent a consumer from transferring a ticket he/she has bought and paid for;  transferability of purchased goods and services is the norm.  There is no security threat, for the new traveler would arrive at the airport with a ticket in his/her name and have to show ID.  That is absolutely unreasonable.

One commenter asks for a rule prohibiting airlines from charging different prices for aisle, window and exit seats.

Responding to DOT’s suggestion of requiring airlines to publicize the lowest possible fare, one commenter opposes the idea; the complexities and diversity of methods associated with fare calculation make such a rule impractical.

[dig]Overbooking/bumping

Commenters propose a number of changes to current practices on overbooking and bumping compensation.:

• Three commenters urge a requirement that airlines put bumped passengers on flights of other carriers.

• Three support requiring airlines to compensate bumped passengers on zero-fare tickets by refunding frequent flyer miles, or otherwise

• Several commenters propose ways airlines could reduce unprofitable empty seats without overbooking.  One suggests that all tickets be subject to a “use em or lose em” policy, or that the value of unused tickets should be reduced by 50%.  Another suggests that airlines sell some portion of tickets that include a guaranteed seat, but that beyond that, tickets should have “first come, first served” seating.  A third suggests a reservation system like that of commercial cruise lines, in which unrefundable deposits  are required on all tickets.

[dig]Baggage

Nearly 15 commenters urge DOT Department of Transportation to require refund of baggage fees when luggage is late or lost.   Various standards were suggested for “late”:  several suggest two hours; one suggests 12 to 24 hours depending on how far the passenger is from the airport; one says that it should depend on the particular circumstances of travel.

One commenter opposes additional baggage regulation, arguing that the possibility of late and lost luggage is part of the normal risk consumers take when flying.

[dig]Airport and In-Flight Experience

One commenter is concerned about whether greater protection should be provided to minors who flying alone.  Two commenters respond to this concern.  One, recounting his/her own experience of flying alone as a mature minor, argues against blanket policies in this area; this commenter believes the best solution is to give airlines leeway in this area.  The second states that parents/guardians who allow children to fly alone are assuming a risk, and airlines should not be responsible for specially protecting every potentially vulnerable passenger.

Two commenters raise the issue of traveling with pets. One objects strenuously to being charged $100 or more each way for having a pet in the carrier this passenger uses for the carry-on luggage allowance.  Another argues that dogs should be allowed to sit in a seat it the traveler is willing to pay for it.

Several commenters want improve standards for customer service.  Many want both easier, faster access to customer service representatives, and better service when they do get an agent.  One suggests a requirement that airlines provide human customer service support for passengers with booked flights, while another suggests a mandatory maximum period of time a customer could be placed on hold or otherwise delayed from speaking to an airline representative.

More than half a dozen commenters express serious dissatisfaction with how far airlines have reduced legroom and other seat dimensions.  They urge DOT Department of Transportation to set minimum standards in these areas.  Some commenters propose a requirement that very large passengers purchase two seats.

Four commenters want DOT Department of Transportation to prevent airlines charging separate fees for necessary inflight items.  Fees for blankets provoke particularly strong reactions.  One commenter points out that the airline, not the passenger, controls cabin temperature.  This same commenter would include water, since the rule against bringing liquids through security forces passengers to pay inflated prices from airport venders, and meals on flights of 5 hours or more.  More generally, one urges restriction of solicitations (e.g., credit cards; products) by flight attendants during the flight.

[dig]Applicability, Enforceability, Transparency

More than a dozen commenters urge that, regardless of what minimum standards are adopted, the standards should be uniform, and made easily accessible to consumers prior to booking.  One commenter emphasizes that new regulations must also apply to online booking services and other air travel sellers.  About a half dozen stress that any proposed change should apply to both domestic and international carriers.

Five commenters agree with DOT’s proposal to include customer service plans and standards in the contract of carriage.  Two argue that passengers should be able to pursue legal action against airlines in their jurisdiction of convenience, and should generally face fewer barriers to holding airlines accountable.

Three commenters say that carriers should disclose the safety history of their flights, with accuracy certified by a third party.  Consumers should have access to this information prior to booking.

[dig]General Desirability of Regulation

Although most commenters express general support for minimum federal standards of customer service and airline practices, several commenters strongly disagree. These commenters are concerned that government-mandated standards will result in higher operating costs that airlines will simply pass on to the consumer.  Some consider the inconvenience of, for example, altered flight schedules, and mishaps such as lost luggage, to be part of the normal risk of flying.  These commenters advocate giving consumers the choice of whether to take those risks in exchange for cheaper flights.  They believe that consumers themselves can effectively police the airline industry by choosing which carriers they fly with; the market will then to enforce standards of conduct among carriers.

Other commenters respond to this position by arguing that the structure of the airline industry is monopolistic; thus consumers do not realistically have much choice among carriers.  They believe that price increases are not the inevitable result of regulation, and that other industries adapt to increased regulation by improving their efficiency.

What’s Going on Here?

This is a summary of the discussion on the Foreign Air Carriers post between June 2 and September 10.  (On September 11, the post was closed to further discussion.)  The summary was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made.  This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong or unclear.

Important dates:

Sept. 13 – Sept. 19:  Comments can be made here on the draft
Sept. 20 :  Commenting on the draft summary closed
Sept. 20 – Sept.  22:  Regulation Room team reviews comments and revises draft
Sept. 23:  Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to DOT Department of Transportation as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record.  (Sept. 23 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

1. The goal here is to give DOT the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the discussion.  This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one.  Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.
2. Rulemaking is not a vote. DOT is not allowed to decide what to do based on majority rule.  (Why? See Effective Commenting).  Approximate numbers are provided in the summary only to give DOT a sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey, please don’t take it again.)

[dig]Who Participated in the Foreign Air Carriers Discussion?

Foreign Air Carriers generated a modest amount of discussion.  18 comments were made on this post:

• 15 comments by 15 users
• 3 comments by Regulation Room moderators

In addition, discussion about whether foreign air carriers should be held to the same standards as domestic airlines can be found in the summaries of other posts.

Commenters included primarily people who identified themselves as air travelers. One who identified themselves as working for a U.S. air carrier and one who described their interest as “other” also commented.

[dig]General Overview

A near consensus of the 15 commenters is that the passenger protection rules DOT Department of Transportation implemented in April, as well as the additional rules it is now considering, should apply equally to at least some foreign airlines making international flights to and from the U.S.  One commenter warns, however, that applying the regulations to foreign carriers could create problems and will not address the root causes of delay.

[dig] Reasons for Applying Regulations to Foreign Carriers

The nearly unanimous group of commenters who believe the regulations should apply equally to domestic and foreign carriers operating in the U.S. give several reasons:

• Fairness as between domestic and foreign carriers is important to many.  Domestic airlines are at a competitive disadvantage unless the same rules apply to all.
• Some also raise the issue of reciprocity:  U.S. carriers have to follow European Union regulations when flying to EU countries, as well as the regulations of other foreign countries.  Foreign carriers  should likewise have to follow U.S. regulations.
• From the perspective of passengers, universal application is important.  One commenter notes that foreign carriers profit from transporting U.S. passengers, and therefore should have to follow U.S. rules when flying to and from the U.S.  Others emphasize that US travelers should be protected whether they choose domestic or foreign carriers.

[dig]Concerns about applying regulations to foreign carriers

One commenter sees reasons to be cautious in applying U.S. regulations to foreign carriers.  Other countries might not perceive U.S. regulations as benign and could retaliate with new restrictions on international flights of US carriers.  He/she warns of the “law of unforeseen consequences.”  This commenter urges DOT Department of Transportation to address the causes of tarmac delay directly rather than imposing significant operational or financial consequences on carriers for something largely outside their control.  The next section summarizes his/her specific suggestions.

Another commenter favors anything that protects him/her, but opposes changes that would result in additional fees for passengers.

[dig]Suggestions for alternative regulatory approaches

One commenter, who supports applying the regulations to all carriers, suggest that an even better approach would be attempting to get all countries to agree to the same rules through an international governmental body established to oversee airlines.

The commenter who urges DOT Department of Transportation to “fix the problem, not the symptoms,” attributes tarmac delay to the FAA and airports for allowing over-scheduling and not restricting slots.  He/she urges consideration of the EU model:  Eurocontrol (the FAA’s equivalent) directs European airports to implement flow-control restrictions whenever an airport (or airspace) cannot provide its expected capacity. When this happens, airlines must reduce their flights in proportion to the total number of slots they ‘own’ at that airport.  In response to a moderator query whether a similar agency should replace the FAA, this commenter said there is no need to reinvent the wheel.  FAA should conduct a review of how slots are determined and allocated.  It should create clear and transparent rules for how delay-creating circumstances should be handled, as well as mechanisms for decisionmaking in specific instances.

For example, he argues, airlines and authorities usually know 24-48 hours before a major snowstorm hits.  A committee of representatives of affected airlines, affected airports, and the FAA should be empowered (and immunized from liability) to discuss the situation and make decisions.  If the committee predicts that airports can only handle 75% of scheduled traffic, then it would create a single, coordinated plan for airlines to implement by rebooking/rerouting customers long before people get to the airport.  The current approach – in which each airline “does its own thing” — is inefficient in preventing delays and ineffective in reducing inconvenience to passengers.

[dig] Relevance of plane size in extending regulation

In general, the commenters who addressed DOT’s question whether there should be a size-of aircraft cutoff for applying regulatory requirements to foreign carriers opposed a size cutoff.

One commenter would use the FAA flight regulations that a carrier flies under (e.g. FAA FAR Part 135/136. etc.) rather than focusing on size of aircraft.  He/she suggests that the existing and new rules should only apply to Part 121 and 125 carriers.

What’s Going on Here?

This is a summary of the discussion on the Data Reporting Requirements post between June 2 and September 10.  (On September 11, the post was closed to further discussion.)  The summary was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made.  This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong or unclear.

Important dates:

Sept. 13 – Sept. 19:  Comments can be made here on the draft
Sept. 20:  Commenting on the draft summary closed
Sept. 20 – Sept.  22:  Regulation Room team reviews comments and revises draft
Sept. 23:  Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to DOT Department of Transportation as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record.  (Sept. 23 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

1. The goal here is to give DOT the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the discussion.  This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one.  Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.
2. Rulemaking is not a vote. DOT is not allowed to decide what to do based on majority rule.  (Why? See Effective Commenting).  Approximate numbers are provided in the summary only to give DOT a sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey, please don’t take it again.)

[dig]Who Participated in the Data Reporting Requirements Discussion?

Data Reporting didn’t generate a lot of direct discussion.  Eight comments were made on this post:

• 6 comments by 6 users
• 2 comments by Regulation Room moderators

In addition, two people commented on carrier data reporting in discussing Tarmac Delay.  We include these other comments in this summary.

Those commenters who responded to our interest survey question identified themselves as air travelers.

[dig]Methodology and Burden on Carriers

One commenter worries that the difficulty of compiling such data will ultimately result in higher ticket prices.  All other commenters disagree.  They say that technology should make data recording relatively easy, as long as computers are doing most of the compilations rather than airline employees. One commenter specifically mentions that the data collection is automated for the large domestic carriers so it should be easy for the smaller carriers and foreign carriers to implement the same automated system to collect data.  Another points out that various types of transportation vehicles (from fighter jets to Formula 1 cars) compile data via computers.  He/she suggests implementing data reporting via a standard technology that uploads to computers, where reports could be generated by the airlines (or, another commenter suggests, by DOT Department of Transportation itself.) This same commenter suggests fines or route losses for airlines that do not upload data and or fail audits.

One commenter on Tarmac Delay discussed data reporting in connection with the Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans:  Airlines should keep statistics about delays and their handling of them, conduct periodic reviews, and revise their Plan with the goal of improving customer satisfaction and reducing the causes for the delays (a Six-Sigma approach, explained in the Tarmac Delay summary).  Another commenter on this topic emphasized the value of having tarmac delay data available by airport, not just air carrier.

[dig]Importance of information

The commenter concerned about costs to carriers and, ultimately, consumers from additional reporting also questions the usefulness of the information:  He/she believes that no one will use the information because it will be outdated as soon as it is published.  Another commenter counters that online performance data is an important statistic that some travelers use in making choices among carriers.  This commenter also argues that publishing their performance data makes airlines pay more attention to their own performance, especially as compared to other airlines.

[dig]Privacy

One commenter is concerned about privacy as well as transparency.  He emphasizes that information on passengers that would be shared with others should be clearly specified, and passengers should be so advised.

What’s Going on Here?

This is a summary of the discussion on the Costs and Benefits post between June 2 and September 10.  (On September 11, the post was closed to further discussion.)  The summary was written by the Regulation Room team based on all the comments people made.  This version is a DRAFT. We need YOUR help to make sure that nothing is missing, wrong or unclear.

Important dates:

Sept. 13 – Sept. 19:  Comments can be made here on the draft
Sept. 20 :  Commenting on the draft summary closed
Sept. 20 – Sept.  22:  Regulation Room team reviews comments and revises draft
Sept. 23:  Final Summary of Discussion is posted on Regulation Room and submitted to DOT Department of Transportation as a formal comment in the official rulemaking record.  (Sept. 23 is the last day of the official commenting period.)

Things to keep in mind as you read through the draft summary and make comments:

1. The goal here is to give DOT the best possible picture of all the different views, concerns, and ideas that came out during the discussion.  This is NOT the place to reargue your position or criticize a different one.  Focus on whether anything is missing or unclear, not whether you agree or disagree.
2. Rulemaking is not a vote. DOT is not allowed to decide what to do based on majority rule.  (Why? See Effective Commenting).  Approximate numbers are provided in the summary only to give DOT a sense of the frequency of views, concerns, and ideas.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey, please don’t take it again.)

[dig]Who Participated in the Costs and Benefits Discussion?

The Costs and Benefits issue generated a modest amount of discussion.  10 comments were made on this post:

• 6 comments by an estimated 6 users
  (2 comments were gathered by site administrators from the site feedback page, and added to this post by the moderator.  No username was associated with these comments)
• 4 comments by Regulation Room moderators

Commenters included primarily people who identified themselves as air travelers.  Commenters included primarily people who identified themselves as air travelers.  One who identified himself/herself as working for a US air carrier also commented.

[dig] General Comments on Costs and Benefits of Proposed Regulations

Commenters were equally split on whether the cost of the proposed regulations would exceed their benefits to consumers.

Two commenters are concerned that the costs to carriers will endanger the industry’s financial health and hurt consumers when these costs are passed on as higher prices.

One considers the proposed regulations to be the equivalent of mandatory air travel insurance that covers passenger inconvenience, delays, and other events airlines cannot control.  He/she predicts that the “premium” for this insurance will be high, and believes that most customers, if given the choice, would prefer travel at lower cost to having additional travel interruption insurance.  DOT Department of Transportation is micro-managing the affairs of private companies.  The other predicts not only increased consumer costs, but also further strain on both carriers and mention airports struggling with less traffic.  This commenter believes that the problem is that airlines are underpricing fares to increase volume.  This is a risk to people and the industry.  What is needed is an approach that sets minimum fare prices at a level where necessary fees are covered.

Two commenters disagree.  One sees this as an issue of passengers’ rights not management freedom of private corporations.  Focusing on tarmac delay, this commenter believes that passengers should have the option to deplane, choose another flight or means of transportation, or postpone travel.  Contingency plans for ensuring this should be a condition of airlines’ getting the right to operate.  The other predicts that the costs to airlines will be much less than what is currently spent on advertising that misleads consumers.  Now, consumers incur considerable cost and inconvenience in trying to get refunds and other recovery for problems due to airlines’ nondelivery of promised service.

[dig] Comments Specifically on DOT Department of Transportation Methodology

One commenter questions why DOT Department of Transportation estimates that fee disclosure to consumers has any quantifiable cost.